General Discussion

TexasMommaWithAHat

(3,212 posts)

94. If you really watched the handling of the bra clasp

Fri Mar 27, 2015, 01:19 PM

Mar 2015

by the Italian Barney Fifes, you would have no question how the bra clasp could have been contaminated.

Gloves and shoe covers are not worn to protect the investigator. They are worn to protect the evidence. They are not supposed to pick up evidence, pass it around from one person to another, drop it on the floor, pick it up, and so on. Gloves should have been changed repeatedly. Small tweezer type instruments should have been used to pick up the objects. They should have been placed in paper bags - not plastic bags. There are good, solid reasons why forensic science requires this careful behavior: contamination!

They walked into the house, opened the door on which Rafaelle's DNA was undoubtedly found since he tried to open the door, and proceeded to make one giant freaking mess inside that room looking for DNA. All those mistakes in a room that had been entered at least a few times by day 46, when the bra clasp was found.

WATCH THE VIDEO. Find all the mistakes made. Even as serious as this case is, I laugh when I watch the video of the evidence collection. It is that damning.

By the way, you can find a person's DNA in dust. It's that small. And we are discussing DNA, and not blood.

ETA - there is no rhyme or reason why the bolding came out the way it did. Suffice it to say, it was not my intention to bold half of what I wrote.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

114 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should the United States extradite Amanda Knox if the Italian government requests it? [View all] DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 OP

For those that would care to look at the Treaty before rendering an international law legal opinion: Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #1

Italy passed legislation AFTER the treaty was signed that had a huge impact on the fairness of the pnwmom Mar 2015 #24

Thanks, pnwmom. elleng Mar 2015 #29

Thank you! nt pnwmom Mar 2015 #30

Someone can't read Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #58

'Someone' is an attorney, elleng Mar 2015 #60

So? Doesn't make him any less wrong. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #62

Some folks are not reading the actual Treaty or understanding it, or why there can NEVER be another trial by Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #67

Evidentiary rules of admission of recorded out of Court statements in criminal trial procedures do not meet any of the treaty exemptions. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #31

The US could never have anticipated the need to have such an exemption in the treaty, pnwmom Mar 2015 #34

All of what you say may be true, but the rule of law remains. The current treaty is what governs. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #41

Except this particular "evidentiary change" removed the presumption of innocence, which is a basic pnwmom Mar 2015 #45

I disagree with your opinion of the result being so drastic...no one would bring that argument up Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #48

Ultimately the State Department will decide, not a judge. All a judge will do pnwmom Mar 2015 #50

A re-trial is not double jeopardy. Happens all the time, right in America...appeals are not trials. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #55

The Italian system is not comparable to ours. Our "appeals" only look at the pnwmom Mar 2015 #59

All I can say is your comparisons between these two legal systems is erroneous on several points. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #66

In what respect? You obviously aren't familiar enough with the Italian system to say. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #73

Ditto to you on the American criminal law system. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #76

You're the one making the claim. Demonstrate it. What errors have I made? pnwmom Mar 2015 #77

Or at the very least should be renegotiated. KamaAina Mar 2015 #64

Fuck Alan Dershowitz and his half baked opinions. MADem Mar 2015 #89

Indeed kcr Mar 2015 #111

And given that Miss Knox's case has been overturned, with no future redress available to that MADem Mar 2015 #112

No. LuvNewcastle Mar 2015 #2

You would think our diplomats and their diplomats can come to a mutually face saving solution./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #3

I agree. LuvNewcastle Mar 2015 #5

I was reading when Hillary Clinton was SOS DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #9

And our diplimats, negotiators and representatives dumbcat Mar 2015 #10

Hard cases make bad laws./NT DemocratSinceBirth Mar 2015 #12

Its not just Europe. Italy has extradition treaties all over the world. former9thward Mar 2015 #15

No, though I believe she is factually guilty. Chan790 Mar 2015 #4

I don't know how anyone who has looked at the evidence can say that. FourScore Mar 2015 #11

All of that not-withstanding... Chan790 Mar 2015 #18

It would not be hard for a strong man armed with a knife to rape and murder a smaller woman. pnwmom Mar 2015 #25

Chan doesn't seem to know much about male female physical interactions. dolphinsandtuna Mar 2015 #68

Her parents said that this petite woman had taken some kind of self-defense lessons, pnwmom Mar 2015 #72

The biggest factor is not the evidence, but where a person lives. DanTex Mar 2015 #19

Bottom Line: As bad as the US court system is, Italy's is absolutely horrific by comparison. -eom- HuckleB Mar 2015 #6

I don;t know if she did it... Adrahil Mar 2015 #7

No. NCTraveler Mar 2015 #8

Do whatever they would normally do under the law treestar Mar 2015 #13

Rule of law. Believe in it or not. This is an actual white hat/black hat question. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #36

Yes, in the interest of Justice dissentient Mar 2015 #14

If the U.S. is not going to honor a treaty they should not have signed it. former9thward Mar 2015 #16

After the US signed the treaty, Italy passed fast track trial legislation that effectively removed pnwmom Mar 2015 #33

Was the treaty changed? How do in-trial evidentiary law amendments fall within the exemptions in the treaty? Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #37

They don't. The justice system was changed. The treaty was signed pnwmom Mar 2015 #42

It is an evidentiary and criminal procedure change, not a question of fundamental rights. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #44

The right to confront your accuser IS a fundamental right pnwmom Mar 2015 #47

The right to confront your accuser is not a fundamental right? TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #91

Actually, it's Italy, and not the U.S., who is attempting to circumvent the treaty. Xithras Mar 2015 #65

"An acquittal was issued" is not the same as your phrase "was aquitted". The words are different.... Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #70

More "people can't read" Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #75

You know what. You're right. I read that wrong. Xithras Mar 2015 #87

Thank you, Counselor! KamaAina Mar 2015 #97

That's fine...we would just kidnap them off the streets of Milan alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #95

What evidence is there that she even might have done it? RedCappedBandit Mar 2015 #17

For example, a knife with her DNA on the handle and the victim's on the blade. DanTex Mar 2015 #20

From what I recall that was largely debunked. RedCappedBandit Mar 2015 #23

That depends who you ask. DanTex Mar 2015 #28

Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. What is the point of your continuing pnwmom Mar 2015 #43

I was responding to a question about the DNA knife. DanTex Mar 2015 #49

Please read the Hellman report section by the two Court-appointed independent forensic pnwmom Mar 2015 #53

OK, or I could tell you to read the Nencini report, which refutes the Hellman report... DanTex Mar 2015 #57

I have read the Nencini report and if you have, you must realize that it is nonsense. n/t pnwmom Mar 2015 #63

Yes I suppose you could find countless pages one way or the other RedCappedBandit Mar 2015 #56

Your opinion is a fair and defensible one. DanTex Mar 2015 #61

If you really watched the handling of the bra clasp TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #94

A lot of people have watched the video and come to a different conclusion. DanTex Mar 2015 #96

Just How Easily DNA Transfer Can Take Place TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #102

Yes, that's really just a generic argument that contamination can occur. DanTex Mar 2015 #105

They investigators made every single mistake TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #106

Well, maybe they should let Rudy Guede go then. DanTex Mar 2015 #107

Well, his print was clearly on her pillow TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #108

But it is still "any evidence"...since you asked. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #38

Yes, I did ask. Thanks RedCappedBandit Mar 2015 #51

Thanks for the poll ! The results are quite illuminating. Bonx Mar 2015 #21

extraditing someone to a kangaroo court is in no ones best interests. nt Javaman Mar 2015 #22

There is no way that Amanda Knox should extradicted Gothmog Mar 2015 #26

No, because: elleng Mar 2015 #27

pretty much Johonny Mar 2015 #35

Appeals do not count as "trials". Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #39

I wouldn't turn over anyone to that insane court system CanonRay Mar 2015 #32

Italy seems fine with it - and around another one hundred countries with Italian Extradition Treaties. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #40

Italy and the Ukraine have the worst track record with the European Supreme Court TexasMommaWithAHat Mar 2015 #104

Should we abide by any of our foreign treaties? Or just when we feel like it. DanTex Mar 2015 #46

Seems like celebrity status, either guilty or innocent, brings with it a complete disregard for rule of law... Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #52

You know,Canada will refuse to extradite if the death sentence will apply. Wash. state Desk Jet Mar 2015 #109

Some countries have death penalty exemptions in the treaty. DanTex Mar 2015 #113

I've been thinking about that ! Wash. state Desk Jet Mar 2015 #114

Means, motive and opportunity. Manifestor_of_Light Mar 2015 #54

No President or SOS will consent to extradition. Political suicide. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #69

Different issue. "Should the United States...." Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #71

not in the public's mind. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #82

Moot, not mute. n/t tammywammy Mar 2015 #74

And it doesn't mean "Irrelevant", it means "debatable" (see: "moot court" in law school). Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #78

Yes. In MOOT Court....in which debate is the entire purpose. But the result is moot. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #80

definition: wyldwolf Mar 2015 #83

But "a moot point" is one that is subject to debate. Spider Jerusalem Mar 2015 #85

that may not come to any satisfactory conclusion or whose conclusion may be meaningless. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #88

The poll results are moot. I have to go now, so I will be mute for a while. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #79

No. moo point. wyldwolf Mar 2015 #81

Didn't think it was a spelling error. tammywammy Mar 2015 #84

auto correct is a best... boost... BEAST wyldwolf Mar 2015 #86

My favorite was when I was telling a friend tammywammy Mar 2015 #92

Auto-check your own words, is second best. Fred Sanders Mar 2015 #93

haha beat me to it alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #99

You're both wrong. It's a "Moo Point," like a cow's opinion alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #98

No Kalidurga Mar 2015 #90

My prediction: within the next 10 years, Ms. Knox will find herself before another court alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #100

How's the peeping? DanTex Mar 2015 #101

RIP PSH: That's one of the best lines of his long and storied career alcibiades_mystery Mar 2015 #103

This issue is now moot Gothmog Mar 2015 #110